David Miliband's article in the Guardian has kept the Labour leadership story going for another couple of days. I doubt whether that was his intention, but that's the consequence. It's an interesting article in that it articulates a vision for the Labour party, which the prime minister has failed to do in his first year in office. It's a vision that achieves the classic Blairite aim of appealing to people on the soft left and many on the soft right. It's classic "big tent" politics.

In the article, he has a right old go at David Cameron, but using language which makes him seem the voice of sweet reason. Seeing as most commenters on Comment is free love to believe I am just a Cameron mouthpiece, let me live up to my reputation and address those criticisms one by one.

Miliband attacks Cameron for using the term "broken society". He asserts that all is perfectly well with our society and that it is not broken at all and turns to government statistics to back up his case. Hmmm. No wonder Labour lost Glasgow East. If cleverer-than-average politicians like Miliband can believe that Glasgow East isn't the very personification of a broken society, then there's not much hope for Labour. We live in a society where half of our kids do not grow up with a father. We have the highest teenage pregnancy rate in Europe. We have the highest rates of teen alcohol drinking. An underclass has been created, which is so divorced from the rest of society as to be almost beyond rescue. By Labour's own measures, the gap between rich and poor is now at its highest ever.

Miliband trumpets the fact that fewer single parents are dependent on the state, but doesn't say where his figures come from. That's not the measure I would use anyway. Surely, the fact that we have the highest rate of single parenthood in the developed world is a cause for concern. That's not to say that many single parents don't do a damned fine job. They do. But would their job not be easier if society didn't somehow glorify their status? Every study I have ever seen says that a child benefits from having two parents, not one. So David Cameron's emphasis on the family surely has to be welcomed, even by politicians on the left.

David Miliband goes on to claim that "the Tories overclaim for what they are against because they don't know what they are for." What a brilliant phrase. It's one Tony Blair would have been proud of. I don't think Miliband really believes it himself, but if he does, then he is surely deluding himself. Every Tory I know is very clear about what they believe. If only time allowed me to write an extended essay now, just on this very theme. If Miliband is basing his future on that one claim, then he is in for a very big shock.

He then goes on to assert that David Cameron's problem is that he is not a radical, he is a Conservative. You know, it really is possible to be both. Miliband reckons Cameron can never be an agent of change because he doesn't believe in change. Strange that Cameron's leadership campaign slogan was "Change to win", and very successful it was, too. No one can deny that he hasn't changed the Conservative party in two and a half very short years. He has changed it in a way that few (including I) thought possible. Has David Miliband not noticed?

If ever there was a politician who was against the status quo, it is Cameron. Miliband reckons Cameron doesn't have a vision. I smiled when I read that. If he thinks Cameron doesn't have a vision, then Christ alone knows what he thinks Gordon Brown has.

I can only think one of two things. This message was meant for a particular audience, or Miliband severely underestimates David Cameron. I leave you to judge which it is.